After months of anticipation, Windows 8 is here. It launches today and goes on sale globally tomorrow. For the last year and a half, we've tracked its progress across three betas and the final release, exploring the ins and outs of Microsoft's most ambitious product launch in two decades.

Over the next few days we'll be publishing a barrage of Windows 8 coverage. Today we'll have the main review, which concentrates on Windows 8's radical new user interface and asks if Microsoft has at last managed to realize its dream of a true tablet PC. We're covering the installation and upgrade experience in a separate feature. On tap is a screenshot tour that shows off Redmond's shiny new look and feel, and we'll also look at benchmarks to make sure the OS still runs as well as it should.

In the coming days, we'll be peeking under the hood in an investigation into the work Microsoft has done to make Windows 8 more secure, more efficient, and more flexible. We'll couple that with an extended look at Storage Spaces, the software giant's solution for managing all your disk space needs. We'll also be looking at the all-new Xbox-branded multimedia experience.

Starting this weekend, we'll have reviews of the bundled Bing applications and Microsoft's range of new games, along with a look at Windows 8's new enterprise-oriented features. We'll finish up with an examination of the platform's core communication and messaging apps early next week.

It has been almost 17 months since we got our first look at Windows 8. Steven Sinofsky, president of Windows and the Windows Live Division, and Julie Larson-Green, vice president of program management for the Windows Experience, demonstrated the new Windows 8 Start screen, codenamed Modern Shell, the first major change to the Windows user interface since Windows 95... 17 years ago.

The change was fostered by the realization that touch computing could be a mainstream phenomenon—would be a mainstream phenomenon—as long as it had a user interface that was comfortable and convenient when controlled by fingertips alone. In the summer of 2009, after Windows 7's development was finalized and before Apple's iPad was announced or released, Microsoft set about creating the user interface that would make Windows a genuinely touchable operating system that would be at home on tablets.

The fundamental flaw with both of these systems was that Microsoft left the Windows user interface, designed as it is for mouse and keyboard, essentially unaltered, relying on styli to replicate the kind of precise manipulations that mice enabled. The result was awkward and unwieldy.

The iPhone's success demonstrated to the world that touchscreens were in fact viable input devices, but also that direct manipulation with fingers, coupled with larger, redesigned user interfaces, were instrumental in achieving widespread acceptance. Touch interfaces could be natural, intuitive, and popular, as long as they were sympathetic to the limitations of finger input.

The user interface, reimagined

For Windows 8's user interface, fingers would come first. But Microsoft has never regarded tablets as a category in their own right; they have always been tablet PCs, with "PC" carrying important implications of its own. PCs are flexible, they're available in all shapes and sizes, from the slimmest ultraportables to full tower, multiprocessor, multimonitor behemoths. Windows 8 could not sacrifice this variety, so although fingers would come first, they would never be the exclusive input method. Windows 8 had to bridge the gap: it had to sport a finger-first user interface that would also work with mice and keyboards.

After that first glimpse of the Start screen, our first real experience with Windows 8's Modern Shell came in September 2011 at a developer conference called BUILD. In sunny Anaheim, California, we got to use the first public beta of Windows 8, the Developer Preview.

By then, the core concepts of the interface were already set in stone. Windows 8 would have two personalities. One personality would be the traditional desktop and taskbar for traditional mouse-and-keyboard applications. The other would be a new interface designed with fingers as first-class citizens, but also supporting mice and keyboards. The aesthetic of the new interface was described as Metro, as it was inspired by the signage used on mass transit systems around the world: bold use of color, a dependence on typography, and clear, stylized iconography.

Applications themselves would similarly be split between the traditional desktop software and the new Metro style apps: touch-first, but mouse and keyboard accessible.

(Microsoft has since backed away from the Metro name, but the company has not offered any superior replacement terminology, so Metro is what I'm sticking with.)

Sinofsky has described this dual interface as a "no compromise" approach, giving users the best of both worlds, "seamless" switching between Metro and the desktop, an "amazing" touch experience, but also an experience that works with mouse and keyboard.

291 Reader Comments

Well, speaking as a longtime Windows/Android user who hates the Apple "walled garden" approach, I'm looking forward to Windows 8 for the performance and functionality improvements... but I will never, ever purchase an app through the Windows Store, because I put my money behind my belief that walled gardens point to an Orwellian future. And that means I can never purchase a Metro app. And if the software I need goes Metro-only at any point, that will be the day I leave the Windows garden, before the walls get too high.

Edit: and on reflection that raises an interesting point. Developers are unlikely to indefinitely support both desktop and Metro versions of their software, so one of two things must inevitably happen: either 1) Metro takes off, desktop apps wither away, and Windows becomes a completely walled garden (and loses users like me), or 2) Metro doesn't take off, in which case Windows 8 will be deemed a failure, and MS will be even further from keeping up with the market, and will lose lots of users that way. Neither future is promising, as much as I want that not to be true. What am I missing?

If you have a current PC with Windows 7 on it. I don't see any reaon functionally to upgrade to Windows 8. I would wait until you buy a new PC on it. I know some who absolutely cannot be left behind will upgrade a older PC and be disappointed that their laptop does not support things like multi gesture touchpads or have a touch screen. Much of what Windows 8 is all about. I like Windows 7 its stable and I know how to use it very well. I don't see the need to embrace it until I need a PC. Actually even with my Mac's I ended up going back to Lion from Mountain Lion. I did not need all the IOS flavored features and I certainly did not like the battery decreases. It does scare me about Windows 8 on a PC as I have yet to really see anyone at Microsoft demo Windows 8 much on a PC. Its usually a tablet device. That in itself tells me their is nothing to see or demo on a PC with Windows 8 that even Microsoft thinks will impress a lot. First time I saw anyone using Windows 8 on a PC was this morning at the Microsoft event. Only because I am sure they felt they had to demo some of the new PC's coming out to spur sales.

Awesome overview. Hopefully they address some of the easy UI stuff in point releases or service packs in the near future. Until then, this has reinforced the idea that I will have a few minor things to relearn but that the occasional inconvenience will be worth it in order to get a true hybrid device like Surface Pro when it comes out.

I don't see myself dealing with it on my existing desktop installs (at least not yet) but I'm very excited for a passable "laptop in a tablet form factor with touch, kb, mouse, and pen inputs". That's been my ideal setup for the past several years and I will be fine with a few days of initial tweaking and re-learning to get it.

Win 8 looks decent on a tablet, but not $500 worth.It is a pain without touch, and pretty much no one is going to be buying large touchscreen displays for desktops. MS should have made Win RT a tablet version of Win Phone 8.

I don't mind that Windows 8 has a store, and I'll probably make purchases on it myself. I do, however, think there needs to be the facility to at least opt in to allowing side-loaded applications. I don't think Microsoft should have the final say about what applications I can run on my PC.

I honestly think this is much to do about nothing. Windows 8 is still, fundamentally, a desktop OS, which means you can download and install any application you please. Upset that MS blocked the eBay app from appearing in the store? Go to eBay's website like you would ordinarily.

Honestly, this concern has more to do with the developers of Metro style apps than it does with MS. So long as developers make their apps available outside of the store, you can use whatever you want on your PC.

Well, speaking as a longtime Windows/Android user who hates the Apple "walled garden" approach, I'm looking forward to Windows 8 for the performance and functionality improvements... but I will never, ever purchase an app through the Windows Store. And that means I can never purchase a Metro app. And if the software I need goes Metro-only at any point, that will be the day I leave the Windows garden, before the walls get too high.

They all have a walled garden to some extent. Even Android. Can you run Android apps on a PC or Mac? Walled gardens are how companies like Microsoft,Apple and Google survive. Selling you apps,content, having you buy cloud services, software and use more of their own applications. Like Chrome, IE,Skydrive,iCloud, iTunes, Google store, gmail. The list goes on. Given the fact Skydrive works on all platforms including Android and Mac's and iPad gives me hope the Microsoft has realized that if it creates a garden of apps that it still needs to advance those apps outside of Windows. That's more then I can say for Apple.

Say, for example, that your family has a shared PC. You have previously used your Microsoft account to purchase a game that all your kids like to play. You can install it for each of your kids by having each of them sign in to their Windows accounts on the shared PC, then launch the Store and sign in to the Store using your own Microsoft account. There, you’ll see all your apps and you can re-install the app on your kid’s Windows account. Installing apps on multiple user accounts on a shared PC still only counts as one of the five allowable PCs where you can install apps.

Although it does seem to imply that the other users can't be signed in with their Microsoft accounts and rather do it on an app by app basis.

Unfortunately, Apple is pushing to migrate that iOS Sandbox concept to OS X. And this is even apparent in Mountain Lion, an application can contain specific documents and only that application can access those documents.

I've been using Mountain Lion since it's release and can state that this is just not true. Apps have no restrictions on which files they can access, well aside from security limits.

Well, speaking as a longtime Windows/Android user who hates the Apple "walled garden" approach, I'm looking forward to Windows 8 for the performance and functionality improvements... but I will never, ever purchase an app through the Windows Store. And that means I can never purchase a Metro app. And if the software I need goes Metro-only at any point, that will be the day I leave the Windows garden, before the walls get too high.

Apparently Windows 8 is a more extreme walled garden approach unless you just use legacy desktop apps which Micorosoft is trying to push developers away from developing for, so I find it hilarious that you're rooting for Windows 8 right now.

You do realize that Microsoft's goal with all this is to funnel all apps going forward through the Windows Store right? Microsoft even stated this from the beginning, that there will be a lot of legacy stuff floating around thus they've left the desktop in but that they want all apps going forward to adhere to the Metro UI which also coincidentally means being funneled through the Windows Store.

Unfortunately, Apple is pushing to migrate that iOS Sandbox concept to OS X. And this is even apparent in Mountain Lion, an application can contain specific documents and only that application can access those documents.

I've been using Mountain Lion since it's release and can state that this is just not true. Apps have no restrictions on which files they can access, well aside from security limits.

You do realize that you never have to touch iCloud if you don't want to right? You also do realize that you are perfectly free to distribute and install apps OUTSIDE of the Mac App Store right? You also do realize that practically nobody ever uses that iOS style app launcher that the last few versions of iOS had right? It's there, but they are not forcing you to use it. It's just like how that entire Xcode coding environment comes with every new Mac out of the box but they are not forcing people to take up programming or be heavy duty macro monkeys using Automator. It's also like how OSX comes with an extremely robust AND FREE enterprise style incremental backup system (do you realize the value of this tool? it's actually quite expensive on Windows since incremental backup software is mostly geared towards the enterprise market), but they don't force you to use it, it's there as an option. There's also Bootcamp, it's there but they are certainly not forcing you to use it and install Windows on your machine.

The worst part about metro is that it takes over your desktop when you just want to launch something simple. It's like adding distracting malware to your computer. Windows 8 is not even worth pirating, they should be paying us to put up with it.

Filling your taskbar with applications is unrealistic for those of us who use dozens of programs. Metro is not an adequate replacement for the start menu.

Anyways I have gone over problems with Windows 8 enough times but the deluded fanboys here want to believe that Microsoft could not actually release something that is hated by so many. Especially when the successes of Kin, Zune and Bob show how carefully they perform market research.

If you really think it is a good idea to release a product that inspires so much hatred from loyal customers then like Ballmer you will have to learn the hard way as to how far your head is up your.....

I seem to remember people saying they were sticking with Windows '98 when Windows XP first came out.

Change is very hard for some people.

True, some people will complain about anything, even if it's something better. I knew a guy that resisted moving to XP for years and for the life of me I could not understand why. It was vastly better than any previous Windows (Windows 2000 users being the only ones who could legitimately argue this - but even then, I'd think you were wrong!).

But this is not some people being against change. I like new OSes, and new technology. I tried Vista and hated it. Lots of wifi and hardware compatibility problems, required more hardware resources but gave me little in return. I kept trying Vista starting with the betas and was always glad to go back to XP.

Windows 7 on the other hand was great. I think it was the second Beta that I tried and it was so good I never went back. I was running the betas or consumer previews (whatever they were called) until it was released.

Windows 8 is feeling like another Vista to me. Under the hood changes are most welcome, especially changes to better use multiple cores and more RAM which are common, and I really like the new Task Manager and file copy dialogs - stuff like that, bring it on!.

But it all comes crashing down with the Metro UI... ugh. It's worse than what we had before (the Start Menu) so why would I "upgrade" to Windows 8? The other changes are good, but not good enough to have to put up with the Metro UI.

Say, for example, that your family has a shared PC. You have previously used your Microsoft account to purchase a game that all your kids like to play. You can install it for each of your kids by having each of them sign in to their Windows accounts on the shared PC, then launch the Store and sign in to the Store using your own Microsoft account. There, you’ll see all your apps and you can re-install the app on your kid’s Windows account. Installing apps on multiple user accounts on a shared PC still only counts as one of the five allowable PCs where you can install apps.

Although it does seem to imply that the other users can't be signed in with their Microsoft accounts and rather do it on an app by app basis.

That was the preview release and that is from 3/12. I could be wrong, but I think it has changed. I guess we will know pretty quickly (tomorrow) when people start trying to use it. I really hope it has changed, but the people I have been talking to who are using the retail copy say you can not do this anymore. I hope they are wrong.

It does appear that in the example you listed the other users would not be able to log into windows 8 with their liveIDs, so that would remove all the benefits of having a lifeID so that you could share an app between users on the same PC.

Unfortunately, Apple is pushing to migrate that iOS Sandbox concept to OS X. And this is even apparent in Mountain Lion, an application can contain specific documents and only that application can access those documents.

I've been using Mountain Lion since it's release and can state that this is just not true. Apps have no restrictions on which files they can access, well aside from security limits.

That is something that is completely different. The iCloud partitioning is more about not replicating a file system in the cloud storage then about application restrictions. Personally I think it's a flawed approach but it has nothing to do with standard application and file interaction.

Say, for example, that your family has a shared PC. You have previously used your Microsoft account to purchase a game that all your kids like to play. You can install it for each of your kids by having each of them sign in to their Windows accounts on the shared PC, then launch the Store and sign in to the Store using your own Microsoft account. There, you’ll see all your apps and you can re-install the app on your kid’s Windows account. Installing apps on multiple user accounts on a shared PC still only counts as one of the five allowable PCs where you can install apps.

Although it does seem to imply that the other users can't be signed in with their Microsoft accounts and rather do it on an app by app basis.

Hmmm.

I think that's still the case, but gosh, it's awfully subtle, and I think it's going to lead to people buying the same application over and over. I want to use a Microsoft Account for _everyone_, because the Microsoft Accounts work better and do more.

I think that's still the case, but gosh, it's awfully subtle, and I think it's going to lead to people buying the same application over and over. I want to use a Microsoft Account for _everyone_, because the Microsoft Accounts work better and do more.

Yeah, if the other users have to use a local account and sign into the MS account on an app-by-app basis, that's one hell of a misleading kludge.

Unfortunately, Apple is pushing to migrate that iOS Sandbox concept to OS X. And this is even apparent in Mountain Lion, an application can contain specific documents and only that application can access those documents.

I've been using Mountain Lion since it's release and can state that this is just not true. Apps have no restrictions on which files they can access, well aside from security limits.

I'm a developer and I can state that App Store apps do have restrictions on which files they can access. (Though Apple has added to the sandbox API to cover more use cases.)

The best thing about the Mac App Store is, that you are not required to use it.

So the fact that I have multiple image editors, all purchased from the app store and up to date, that have no trouble accessing the same exact files. Plus a web site creation and publication tool that takes some of those images and uploads them to a web server doesn't have an issue either. Does this mean I'm just that lucky?

I looked this morning at the attractive Win 8 retail box on my local electronics store's web site, with it's equally attractive upgrade pricing and for a moment I really felt the urge to rush out and buy it. Now I'm sitting here, reading this thorough article, and trying to convince myself that 'maybe it's not so bad after all'.

But then the reality of my experience with the preview version on the desktop kicks in, and it comes down to this: why would I want to switch from an OS that I can use happily all day, to one that regularly, as another poster puts it, makes me want to punch someone (preferably someone from Microsoft)? In the interests of inner calm I'll stick with Win 7 for now.

Been using W8 since they released the first beta and RTM in August. It's a magnificent OS and I'm getting a W8 tablet tomorrow. However, Metro on the desktop, especially in a multi-monitor environment, is a bit of a distraction.

During beta there used to be a registry setting that disabled Metro but it's no longer working ( @#$%^&**!) . Does anyone know of a work around?

"For Windows 8's user interface,fingers would come first"(that's it for me) they are forcing it upon non-touch users. I do not want to have to deal with that Metro mess on my Desktop,there's so little to gain,for so much hassle,eyesore.If its not broke,why fix it! Win8 is made by young people for young people.I'll be sticking with Windows 7

I have been developing for the Microsoft ecosystem for the past 20 years. Games, software, web things (first ASP, then ASP.NET and now .NET MVC). I'm not against learning, far from it and this is what makes my job interesting. But now, I had too much. An overload of "yet another paradigm, framework and workflow" to learn and become productive (fast!) with. I invested much, much time on XNA (heck, even wrote a friggin' book about it!) and we know where XNA is going.

About a year ago, I started to target OS X and iOS. Last month, I completed my last contract involving .NET and now, I will only be coding for the Apple ecosystem. The money is as good, there is still less concurrence when it comes to finding great contracts to work on and the workflow seems a little more stable than the constant reinventing done at Microsoft. Thank you, Microsoft, it has been a long and fun ride but you successfully made me tired.

Eh. I don't see anything in there that would make switching actually worthwhile. I don't give one single damn about the metro interface side of things, and I don't see any other worthwhile improvements that would make an upgrade look like a good idea.

I seem to remember people saying they were sticking with Windows '98 when Windows XP first came out.

Change is very hard for some people.

Did you change to Bob when it came out or were you afraid of change?

I'm really tired of people trying to ascribe legitimate criticism as fear of change or unwillingness to adapt. Anyone who embraces change for the sake of it is a fool. If Toyota changed from a circular wheel to an octagon would you change to it?

Windows 8 is a waste of time for mouse and keyboard users. The public is not going to like dualing desktops or the adware formally known as metro. Windows 8 is a lousy product but please go buy MSFT if you think I am wrong.

Win 8 is terrible on a large monitor or 2 monitors. Metro stinks for big displays. It seems great on a small tablet (where the desktop UI sucks).MS is making a 1 size fits all OS and it will not serve anyone well. Metro on a 28" 1920x1280 display is crap. 1 or 2 programs at once? Who uses a computer that way?If I could relegate Metro to a window on the desktop, shown alongside my other windows, I might go for it. Otherwise it is absurd.

Ditto. Utter absurd. It's so absurd I can't fathom how anyone at MS can seriously push this as modern desktop OS. It's a complete disaster on a large screen.

I will be honest: I'm super excited about this! I so want a touch screen desktop now or a Surface! This is probably the first Windows release that has made me go "Wow, that looks like fun!" And this review I think is fair, and frankly, made me even MORE excited about this release.

Thank you for killing my bank account Mr. Bright! Can I have my wife complain to you?!

What I don't understand from both Microsoft and others is this huge push to the cloud. People ought to reject it. It has huge privacy and content rights concerns with extraordinarily small benefits. With terabyte harddrives so cheap, there is really no reason why anyone would need to store everything in the cloud.

I will be honest: I'm super excited about this! I so want a touch screen desktop now or a Surface! This is probably the first Windows release that has made me go "Wow, that looks like fun!" And this review I think is fair, and frankly, made me even MORE excited about this release.

Thank you for killing my bank account Mr. Bright! Can I have my wife complain to you?!

16 posts and registered last week huh?

We sure have had a lot of new posters this month.

You guys should probably go hang out at Wal-mart, you'll have a better chance there of convincing people that Windows 8 isn't a piece of crap.

"...Windows 8 Start screen, codenamed Modern Shell, the first major change to the Windows user interface since Windows 95... 17 years ago."---------------------------------------------------Look, how is a dysfunctional pseudo-desktop that is laden with forced 'desktop' gadgets a "major change"? This so called "Modern UI" is a fantastic idea, really is, for touch screen devices. But my desktop PC, as are most desktop PCs (at my work, at my college, etc.) are not touch based devices and I can guarantee that it will stay that way for some time to come.

Microsoft could have, and should have (and probably will with a patch -and yes, I really do mean to call it a 'patch'-) given the user during installation the option to specify if they want the keyboard/mouse tuned W8 or the touch-screen tuned version. To force the touch-screen when I do not have a touch-screen device is honestly comical. I might even embrace Modern UI if it wasn't so blatantly reminding me with it's ugliness to go ahead and "swipe" here and "press with your finger" there. Have you even opened W8 help files - they keep referring to "swipe" and "swiping" and "pinch to zoom" - I'm sorry, I didn't know I can pinch with my mouse. W8 just feels like a vomit bag of ideas that simply doesn't feel right. Yes, I've been using RTM and I do not like it over-all.

I've been using Win 8 through a VM for about a month now, and I can say with certainty that I will definitely not upgrade my desktops to it.

Being a programmer, I rely on my keyboard and mouse for a lot. Not having the start menu actually cuts down on my productivity because I can't just click on the menu while still keeping everything open. I have to go to a completely different screen, which really takes me out of what I was doing.

I will say though that I had no idea that I could switch between running applications by going on the left side of the screen. That will be helpful at least.

I'm confused. You say you use the keyboard and mouse a lot... Going desktop is a single press of the Windows key.

Virtually all of the Start menu functionality is fully intact. The only thing functionality missing is recent documents (and this is a major omissions in my opinion).

And for switching apps... Alt+Tab has existed forever. And there's also Win+Tab. However, I do miss Aero-tabbing. Alt+Tab seems like a retro throwback to the Windows 95 days. I liked seeing the additional information that Win+Tab had in Windows 7.

In fact, Windows 8 has more keyboard shortcuts than any other Windows.

I will be honest: I'm super excited about this! I so want a touch screen desktop now or a Surface! This is probably the first Windows release that has made me go "Wow, that looks like fun!" And this review I think is fair, and frankly, made me even MORE excited about this release.

Thank you for killing my bank account Mr. Bright! Can I have my wife complain to you?!

16 posts and registered last week huh?

We sure have had a lot of new posters this month.

You guys should probably go hang out at Wal-mart, you'll have a better chance there of convincing people that Windows 8 isn't a piece of crap.

Haha his username is dbmarketing....

Anyways, for those looking to "hide" the new start menu, as someone mentioned Start8 is nice. I used it while it was in beta, but they started charging $5 for it.

Alternatively Classic Shell is an open source project that works well.

I almost never access the metro start menu since then, and the OS runs just like Win7 after you reassign the default programs.

So the fact that I have multiple image editors, all purchased from the app store and up to date, that have no trouble accessing the same exact files. Plus a web site creation and publication tool that takes some of those images and uploads them to a web server doesn't have an issue either. Does this mean I'm just that lucky?

It's just a case of people wanting a platform that is completely open not because they have a need for it but purely because they like knowing that they have the option. Geek logic.

I've been using Windows 8 at work for the past few months, and I see no real reason to upgrade my Windows 7 install at home. Windows 8 does have some new interesting features and ideas, but I get the feeling that they haven't really finished working on them yet.

In many ways they have taken some of the annoying idiosyncrasies of mobile OSes and ported them to the desktop. (Such as pretending that files don't really exist.) I also find it sad that they have completely missed the ball on interaction between the desktop and "metro". If it was possible to have apps that lived in both desktop and metro that could have been awesome. (Eg, fully featured media player on desktop which turns into "party mode" or "10-feet interface mode" in metro.)

And the biggest gripe is probably that they completely missed the ball when it comes to application interaction. One of the most powerful features of a computer is when you can make applications work together. The cross application sharing could be a much more powerful concept if it allowed you to do it on more things than just an entire application window. (That's essentially how sharing in Android works as well, but in Android it's also used to trigger intents if the current application doesn't know what to do with some content. Eg if you click on an MP3 in an email app.) Think something that combines the simplicity of copy-paste with the flexibility of pipeing commands or drag-and-drop between applications.)

The best thing I can say is that it is at least cheap to get an upgrade. I think that will make quite a lot of people take the plunge because at $40 it's hard to feel ripped off.

EDIT: I feel that both the "one app store" and applications which are siloed off from one another are antithetical to PCs. They represent compromise which are made on devices where full freedom is is perhaps a bit too demanding. (Although in many ways I'd say Android is more flexible in both regards than a desktop computer running Windows 8 "don't call it Metro" apps. And that's just sad.)

OS upgrades are always dicey, why should I put time into upgrading my operating system when what I have is working so well. Perhaps you could entice me with features that will improve my user experience. Perhaps you could offer me better performance of the software that I run everyday.

Or you could offer me the exciting opportunity to relearn everything that you have taught me in the last 2 decades, with no promise of improved performance or desired new features. I think I will pass for now. If I was single, had no kids, and unemployed I might feel like taking on this project but I would probably paint my house first.

What I don't understand from both Microsoft and others is this huge push to the cloud. People ought to reject it. It has huge privacy and content rights concerns with extraordinarily small benefits. With terabyte harddrives so cheap, there is really no reason why anyone would need to store everything in the cloud.

It's all about convenience. I love iCloud because it automatically keeps stuff synced between my iPhone and iPad, and a couple of things on my Macbook too. I just wish there was a non-vendor-ingrained, multi-platform version so Windows could get in on the fun too.

Why is IMAP e-mail better than POP? Because you read/move/delete messages in one place, and it does it everywhere for your account.

As for privacy, you can get a NAS and host your own little SSL-backed cloud.

There's a lot to like about this new OS, it's sad that so much of it is overshadowed by something superficial like the UI. On the other hand, it certainly could have been better, and I suspect they will continue to improve it. Thanks for the insightful article, didn't realize how segregated the Metro and Desktop sides were.

The UI is, literally, how an user interacts with the machine. A lousy UI means a lousy experience.As great as the improvements under the hood are, if the average user doesn't have a nice experience, the adoption rate will suffer.

I too feel that calling the quality of a user interface, a "superficial" detail, is incredibly naive.

You'd think that computer geeks would have realized by now that user experience is precisely what determines whether software is a complete failure or a success.

I still hate the whole thing; the mix of Metro and desktop is jarring, unwieldy and annoying, the Edge UI is a step back for mice (having to move into the corners is the longest possible mouse action you could ask a user to do!). The arbitrary divide between Metro and desktop is stupid as well, as it means there are going to be years of pain as app developers produce for one and not the other, because the effort of providing both is so much higher; that is, doing both well, as I full expect we'll see apps that do both but are terrible at one or both of them.

It's an okay tablet OS when everything you need to run is available for Metro, but otherwise it is truly horrible.

I can't help but think that for all the annoying iOS bleed over in OS X, Apple has the better strategy here by making their OS incrementally more touch friendly, as the transition is far less jarring, and the OS remains as solid for desktop use as ever, even if some of the iOS features are annoyances.

I already like Windows 8 better than any previous version of Windows. Which doesn't mean much, granted.

Anyway, I have to pay respect to MS. They did what they had to do and then some. This is what they had to do to keep Windows relevant and they did it quite well, especially for such a break with almost every version before UI-wise.

The adaption rate will be rather slow, but it already was for Windows 7 and this is not really in the distant past. Many people and companies are still at XP and those who are on Windows 7 won't see the need to upgrade right now. No need to hurry anyway.

I too feel that calling the quality of a user interface, a "superficial" detail, is incredibly naive.

You'd think that computer geeks would have realized by now that user experience is precisely what determines whether software is a complete failure or a success.

The first time I was going to shut down a computer running Windows 8 I had to search for the "power off" button in the UI. I literally (used correctly this time) had to stop and think "now where could they have put the power button?". It's a pretty core feature on a computer to turn it off, it's not a game of "finding Waldo". To me that was a big hint that Windows 8 wasn't fully though through. (You can find it on the logout screen BTW. But I don't think many home users do ctrl-alt-delete when they use their computers.)

We also have all the hidden features of putting things in the corners but not showing a UI clue that there is something there. It was a terrible idea in old adventure games where you had to search for the place where the cursor changed shape... And it's a fucking horrible idea in a user interface.